Elliott Hulse has completely lost his mind

[Gesundheit]

1 minute ago, Carl-Richard said:

Try explaining anything without using a model.

Straw-man.

The map is not the territory.

[Carl-Richard]

Just now, Gesundheit said:

Straw-man.

The map is not the territory.

What the hell are you on about man? 

[Gesundheit]

1 minute ago, Carl-Richard said:

What the hell are you on about man? 

Something out of your league.

[Carl-Richard]

2 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

Something out of your league.

Explain.

[Rilles]

If I had a dollar for everytime...

"Drop your models"

"They are useful"

"Map is not the terrority"

 

Jesus H Christ, this damn forum.

[Carl-Richard]

Just now, Rilles said:

If I had a dollar for everytime...

"Drop your models"

"They are useful"

"Map is not the terrority"

 

Jesus H Christ, this damn forum.

[Gesundheit]

@Carl-Richard There's not much to say here other than the map is not the territory. Don't attach to any particular map. It's that simple. You're criticizing Elliott for attaching to certain ideologies, and yet you're doing the same. So you're criticizing from the same level, not from above.

[RedLine]

35 minutes ago, Tim R said:

Why did he suddenly regress into this blue nonsense? 

And in general, why and how do people fall down the spiral? 

well because spiral dynamics is bullshit

if really obeys to spiral dynamics, spiral dynamics is ok, if really goes against spiral dynamics, it is a regression. That way spiral dynamics is 100% irrefutable. Of course if you consider you are in the top of the spiral, spiral dynamics is ok for you, but it is self bias

If you want to understand civilizations development study Spengler and Toybee, not that lefties development models.

 

 

 

 

[Carl-Richard]

Just now, Gesundheit said:

@Carl-Richard There's not much to say here other than the map is not the territory. Don't attach to any particular map. It's that simple. You're criticizing Elliott for attaching to certain ideologies, and yet you're doing the same. So you're criticizing from the same level, not from above.

By saying that though, you're actually asserting that Elliot has an epistemologically informed perspective on what his models can and cannot say about reality. I don't know which model you're using to get to that conclusion, but I don't vibe with that.

[Gesundheit]

1 minute ago, Carl-Richard said:

By saying that though, you're actually asserting that Elliot has an epistemologically informed perspective on what his models can and cannot say about reality.

Lol as if anyone ever has.

[RedLine]

24 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

If you're not trolling, show me a model that gives an aesthetically perfect description of all of reality.

24 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

gives an aesthetically perfect description of all of reality.

gives a aesthetically perfect description of really from your pov of western postmodern liberal because all the other perspective fall below you

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, RedLine said:

well because spiral dynamics is bullshit

if really obeys to spiral dynamics, spiral dynamics is ok, if really goes against spiral dynamics, it is a regression. That way spiral dynamics is 100% irrefutable. Of course if you consider you are in the top of the spiral, spiral dynamics is ok for you, but it is self bias

This is to take an utopian perspective on models. Yes, when models get more complex, they don't follow simple linear relationships. That is to be expected. With that in mind, there is a strong argument to be made that he never actually settled in Green. He stuck his head in, took a look around, and backed out. If you wanted to make a strong case against SD, show me a person who has been firmly planted at one stage for say 20 years and suddenly regressed down (not as a result of something like a cognitive impairment or an apocalyptic societal change). Even if you find some anomalies, that doesn't necessarily have to impact the overall utility. Paul Feyerabend realized this.

Edited December 29, 2020 by Carl-Richard

[Gesundheit]

5 minutes ago, RedLine said:

gives a aesthetically perfect description of really from your pov of western postmodern liberal because all the other perspective fall below you

Precisely! ??

[Carl-Richard]

59 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

Lol as if anyone ever has.

Well heyo if that's not some postmodern neo-marxist level relativism then kiss my steak and call me Jordan Peterson . Do you think Elliot has any post-Kuhnian epistemological knowledge? He has shown zero signs of that in the views he is choosing to share with people. There is an obvious difference between the standards he is setting vs. this forum.

Edited December 29, 2020 by Carl-Richard

[Gesundheit]

2 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

This is to take an utopian perspective on models. Yes, when models get more complex. they don't follow simple linear relationships. That is to be expected. With that in mind, there is a strong argument to be made that he never actually settled in green. He stuck his head in, took a look around, and backed out. If you wanted to make a strong case against SD, show me a person who has been firmly planted at one stage for say 20 years and suddenly regressed down (not as a result of something like a cognitive impairment or an apocalyptic societal change). Even if you find some anomalies, that doesn't necessarily have to impact the overall utility. Paul Feyerabend realized this.

Spiral Dynamics is not designed originally for individuals. It is designed for societies. All societies all over history all over the world have shared the same pattern up to this day. They keep developing until a portion of them reaches Green, and then they collapse. This is an established fact throughout human civilization. Spiral Dynamics makes the additional step in that it assumes that society will not collapse after Green. This has not ever occurred before, and it is very unlikely to occur now. But believe whatever you want, time will tell.

[RedLine]

32 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

This is to take an utopian perspective on models. Yes, when models get more complex. they don't follow simple linear relationships. That is to be expected. With that in mind, there is a strong argument to be made that he never actually settled in green. He stuck his head in, took a look around, and backed out. If you wanted to make a strong case against SD, show me a person who has been firmly planted at one stage for say 20 years and suddenly regressed down (not as a result of something like a cognitive impairment or an apocalyptic societal change). Even if you find some anomalies, that doesn't necessarily have to impact the overall utility. Paul Feyerabend realized this.

The most evolved people I know evolved from green (when they were teenagers) to blue. It was also my case; partially. Man, there are even words for this on the internet: "redpill", "based", "blackpilled". People when they are young they live in la la land, they think, that religion is bullshit, all races are equal, autority and tradition are stupid, all is driven by reason, etc, etc ; is is bascially narcisism, Then they grow, read, mature, gains experience, etc and start to be more realistic and respect tradition and society norms.

 

 

Edited December 29, 2020 by RedLine

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, RedLine said:

gives a aesthetically perfect description of really from your pov of western postmodern liberal because all the other perspective fall below you

I can't decode this level of linguistic brilliance

 

1 hour ago, Gesundheit said:

Spiral Dynamics is not designed originally for individuals. It is designed for societies.

Well, tell me, exactly what method did Clare Graves use to construct the different SD stages? He made individual college students write essays about what they consider to be a mature individual. Where did you get this idea from?

 

1 hour ago, Gesundheit said:

All societies all over history all over the world have shared the same pattern up to this day. They keep developing until a portion of them reaches Green, and then they collapse. This is an established fact throughout human civilization. Spiral Dynamics makes the additional step in that it assumes that society will not collapse after Green. This has not ever occurred before, and it is very unlikely to occur now. But believe whatever you want, time will tell.

First off, The Soviet Union wasn't Green; it was Blue (you're obviously pointing to that). Secondly, you should be careful with equating one moment in history with another. The idea that history merely repeats itself is a naive notion. It ignores the self-evident fact that society evolves. Even if we were to assume that Green was tried and deemed unsuccessful in one country at one time in history, that doesn't mean it will be unsuccessful in a later time in a different country. You have to take into account the state of the entire world and the country's relationship to that ever-changing environment. I mean, Orange wasn't sustainable back when everybody lived in pre-agricultural tribes, but look at today. This is a weakness of the historic model

Edited December 29, 2020 by Carl-Richard

[lmfao]

He's ripped, christian, wearing glasses and giving a makeshift ted talk on fascistic values. Living the incel dream. 

[Carl-Richard]

45 minutes ago, RedLine said:

The most evolved people I know evolved from green (when they were teenagers) to blue. It was also my case; partially. 

Notice how you chose to say "partially". Teenagers can easily adopt (or co-opt) many Green sentiments because they echo Red, anti-Blue, anti-structure, anti-hierarchy sentiments (teenagers have a lot of Red). They therefore evolved from Red to Blue, not Green to Blue. You have to be able to parse out what constitutes a mature embodiment of a stage and what constitutes a mere similarity of values across different stages. There are countless examples of where different stages can be in agreement.

Edited December 29, 2020 by Carl-Richard

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Tim R said:

Why did he suddenly regress into this blue nonsense? 

That's the stage Green backlash we've been seeing for the last 5 years.

I bet he consumes a lot of alt-right social media which constantly demonizes Green, and he sees Green as undermining his masculine identity.

The easiest way to get young men to buy into alt-right ideology is by telling them that Green wants to turn them all into queer soy-boys. A few years of such propaganda will turn a young guy hard right. That's the whole Proud Boys game.